Gallup: 71% of Democrats Say Government Should Redistribute Wealth

[JenAltArmy]

And hence they are redistributing wealth. A high income person is going to pay way more into medicare than they're every going to draw. A low income person will pay way less into it than they will draw. Therefore wealth is being redistributed.

this is EPIC! redistributing wealth is NEVER A GOOD THING

get a real job, government isn't a real job (your just too lazy and hiding from reality)

government is the place where people who can't work, don't want to work, or unable to work in the real world, work.

which one are you?

 

[JenAltArmy]

what is wrong with these people

AngeloMichael, badbabysitter, KingOrfeo, LJ_Reloaded, mercury14, rosco rathbone, Sean Renaud, sunandshadow, The_Trouvere

we need to send them off to 711 boot camp, where they can lean the value of money, how to balance cash flow, and how they can make their own money instead of leaching off others.

blood suckers, that is what they are!

Gallup Poll:
71% of Democrats Say Government Should Redistribute Wealth

Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes.

Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. A majority of independents oppose the redistribution of wealth policy, as well.


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/svwtwkajle2izlwa_xv9yg.gif


What are YOUR views regarding the Redistribution of Wealth through Heavy Taxes on the Rich?

Poll to follow.

Do you think U.S. government should, or should not, redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?

 

[miles]

Wow. This is real news.

More than half of American households pay no income tax.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Wow. This is real news.

More than half of American households pay no income tax.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3353877772_b82e08b647_m.jpg

 

[MeeMie]

Let's see if this jogs your memory:

Bush Administration provided GM and GMAC with ~$14.4B in TARP funds in December 2008. The Obama Administration oversaw a continuation of this strategy.

Familiar to see the Bush blame game distorted to promote your viewpoint. Bush was condemned and ridiculed as President for two terms by the loonies, yet every time, in a rush to defend Obama, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, President Bush is pointed to in retrospect.


The biggest difference is that President Bush gave a three month loan, in order to orderly smooth the transition of both the presidency and the auto industry restructuring under bankruptcy supervision.


Dec 19, 2008


President Bush announced $13.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, and he said that another $4 billion would be available for the automakers in February. The entire bailout rests on whether the companies can reorganize to show that they can return to profitability. If the companies don't come up with "a viable plan by March 31st," they would be forced to repay the loans as soon as possible.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5kRVfmMoE


Key excerpts:
(bolded for the reading impaired)

Now some of the U.S. auto executives say that their companies are near collapse, and that the only way they can buy time to restructure is with help from the Federal Government. It's a difficult situation that may involve fundamental questions about the proper role of government.

On the one hand, government has the responsibility not to undermine the private enterprise system. On the other hand, the government has the responsibility to safeguard the broader health and stability of our economy. Addressing the challenges in the auto industry, requires us to balance these two responsibilities.

If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the auto makers. Under ordinary circumstances, I would say "this is the price that failed companies must pay." and I would NOT favor intervening to prevent the automakers from going out of business. But these are not ordinary circumstances. In the mix of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U. S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action.

It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis. It would tend our suffering economy to a deeper and longer recession. And it would leave the next President to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days in office.

A more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructure outside of bankruptcy and a brief window in which to do it.

And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with a loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability.

This legislation earned bipartisan support from majority in both houses of Congress. Unfortunately, despite extensive debate, an agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year. This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U. S. auto industry is for the Executive Branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed. And, so do I.

So, today I am announcing that the Federal Government will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week.

Because Congress failed to make funds available for these loans, the plan that I am announcing today will be drawn from the financial rescue package Congress approved earlier this Fall.

Restructuring will require many full concessions from all involved in the auto industry. Management, labor unions, creditors, bond holders, dealers and suppliers. In particular, auto makers must meet conditions that experts agree are necessary for long term viability, including putting their retirement plans on a sustainable footing... and making their compensation competitive with foreign auto makers who have major operations in the United States.

If a company fails to come up with a viable plan by March 31st, it will be required to repay its Federal loan. The auto makers and unions must understand what is at stake and make all decisions necessary to reform.

 

[The_Trouvere]

get a real job, government isn't a real job (your just too lazy and hiding from reality)

government is the place where people who can't work, don't want to work, or unable to work in the real world, work.

Tell that to those in the military and the police force, and see what happens.

While you are at it, tell it to fire fighters, public school teachers, and those who administer popular entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Familiar to see the Bush blame game distorted to promote your viewpoint. Bush was condemned and ridiculed as President for two terms by the loonies, yet every time, in a rush to defend Obama, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, President Bush is pointed to in retrospect.

The biggest difference is that President Bush gave a three month loan, in order to orderly smooth the transition of both the presidency and the auto industry restructuring under bankruptcy supervision.


Dec 19, 2008


President Bush announced $13.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, and he said that another $4 billion would be available for the automakers in February. The entire bailout rests on whether the companies can reorganize to show that they can return to profitability. If the companies don't come up with "a viable plan by March 31st," they would be forced to repay the loans as soon as possible.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5kRVfmMoE


Key excerpts:
(bolded for the reading impaired)

Now some of the U.S. auto executives say that their companies are near collapse, and that the only way they can buy time to restructure is with help from the Federal Government. It's a difficult situation that may involve fundamental questions about the proper role of government.

On the one hand, government has the responsibility not to undermine the private enterprise system. On the other hand, the government has the responsibility to safeguard the broader health and stability of our economy. Addressing the challenges in the auto industry, requires us to balance these two responsibilities.

If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the auto makers. Under ordinary circumstances, I would say "this is the price that failed companies must pay." and I would NOT favor intervening to prevent the automakers from going out of business. But these are not ordinary circumstances. In the mix of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U. S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action.

It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis. It would tend our suffering economy to a deeper and longer recession. And it would leave the next President to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days in office.

A more responsible option is to give the auto companies an incentive to restructure outside of bankruptcy and a brief window in which to do it.

And that is why my administration worked with Congress on a bill to provide automakers with a loans to stave off bankruptcy while they develop plans for viability.

This legislation earned bipartisan support from majority in both houses of Congress. Unfortunately, despite extensive debate, an agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year. This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U. S. auto industry is for the Executive Branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed. And, so do I.

So, today I am announcing that the Federal Government will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week.

Because Congress failed to make funds available for these loans, the plan that I am announcing today will be drawn from the financial rescue package Congress approved earlier this Fall.

Restructuring will require many full concessions from all involved in the auto industry. Management, labor unions, creditors, bond holders, dealers and suppliers. In particular, auto makers must meet conditions that experts agree are necessary for long term viability, including putting their retirement plans on a sustainable footing... and making their compensation competitive with foreign auto makers who have major operations in the United States.

If a company fails to come up with a viable plan by March 31st, it will be required to repay its Federal loan. The auto makers and unions must understand what is at stake and make all decisions necessary to reform.

copy & paste
copy & paste
copy & paste
:caning:

 

[MeeMie]

Has everyone so quickly forgotten what Obama's campaign solution was for Social Security and Medicare?

It was to confiscate your private 401K Individual Retirement Account funds to replace retirement benefits.

You know ... the account where YOU and/or YOUR EMPLOYER deposited private money.

They want you to forget until he gets a chance to jam it through in his second term.



A refresher course:



Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?
October 23, 2008

I hate to use the "S" word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right?

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans.

In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker.




(The Obama Retirement Ripoff of 2009)

Congress should let workers trade their 401(k) assets for guaranteed retirement accounts made up of government bonds.

When workers collected Social Security, the guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation-adjusted annuity under this plan.




Your Social Security retirement benefits will come from your converted 401K

Get it?



"Are 401(k)s Safe from Congressional Democrats?"

If you have a 401(k) or equivalent retirement plan, you've probably been watching nervously the past few weeks as your nest egg has shrunken owing to the current turmoil in the markets. Well, it could be worse. It could disappear all together.


There is a plan that the Democrats are considering to convert your 401(k) to the Social Security Administration, your 401(k) then administered by the SSA, your private retirement plan becomes owned by the government.


In addition, workers would be able to pass on only half of their account balances to their heirs," so that your 401(k) would be subject to the 50% death tax rate because the government's going to own it. The government's going to own your 401(k), and your 401(k) will guarantee you just 3% in government bonds administered by the government.* Your private retirement account that the government set up and got you into, now they want to take over from you.

All money will officially be government's.

It's not your private retirement account anymore.

It's a government sponsored deal. They're going to take all of that away and put the money in the Social Security trust fund.

Your private account confiscated and disbursed to you instead of the Social Security benefits that you are entitled to after paying into for fifty years.




Remember this thread?



Republicans Sound Alarm on Administration Plan to Seize 401(k)s

In February, the White House released its “Annual Report on the Middle Class” containing new regulations favored by Big Labor including a bailout of critically underfunded union pension plans through “retirement security” options.

The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement -- which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies.

Vice President Joe Biden floated the idea, called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts” (GRAs), in the February “Middle Class” report.

In conjunction with the report’s release, the Obama administration jointly issued through the Departments of Labor and Treasury a “Request for Information” regarding the “annuitization” of 401(k) plans through “Lifetime Income Options” in the form of a notice to the public of proposed issuance of rules and regulations.

http://www.dol.gov/federalregister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=23512




House Republican Leader John Boehner, and a group of House Republicans, are mounting an effort to fight back.

The American people have become painfully aware over the past year that elections sometimes have calamitous consequences. Republicans lack the votes to reign in the Obama administration’s myriad nationalization plans for everything from health care to the automobile industry.

Now the backdoor bulls-eye is on your 401(k) plan and the trillions of dollars the government would control through seizure, regulation and federal disbursement of mandatory retirement accounts.

Boehner and the group are sounding the alarm, warning bureaucrats to keep their hands off of America’s private retirement plans.

Just when you thought it was safe to come up for air after the government takeover of health care.




The entirety of the House GOP Savings Recovery Group letter outling the issue that was sent last night to the Labor and Treasury secretaries:

The Honorable Hilda L. Solis
Secretary
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210

The Honorable Timothy Geithner
Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210

Dear Secretaries Solis and Geithner:

As members of the Republican Savings Solutions Group, we write today to express our strong opposition to any proposal to eliminate or federalize private-sector defined contribution pension plans, such as 401(k)s, or impose burdensome new requirements upon the businesses, large and small, who choose to offer these plans to their employees.

In the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, Vice President Biden discussed at length the creation of so-called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts, (GRAs)” which would provide for protection from “inflation and market risk” and potentially “guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation” -- presumably at taxpayer expense. In the Report, the Vice President recommended “further study of these issues.”

The Vice President’s comments are troubling, insofar as they come on the heels of testimony before Congress from supporters of GRAs proposing to eliminate the favorable tax treatment currently afforded to 401(k) plans, and instead use those dollars to fund government-invested GRAs into which all employees would be required to contribute a portion of their salary -- again, with a government subsidy. These advocates would, essentially, dismantle the present private-sector 401(k) system, replacing it instead with a government-run investment plan, the size and scope of which remain to be seen. This despite data showing that 90 percent of households have a favorable opinion of the existing 401(k)/IRA system.

In light of these facts, we write today to express our opposition in the strongest terms to any effort to “nationalize” the private 401(k) system, or any proposal that would dismantle or disfavor the private 401(k) system in favor of a government-run retirement security regime.

Similarly, and more recently, the Departments of Labor and Treasury have jointly issued a “Request for Information” regarding the “annuitization” of 401(k) plans through “Lifetime Income Options.” While we appreciate the Departments’ seeking guidance and information from all parties and stakeholders in advance of regulatory activity, we strongly urge that the Departments not proceed with any regulation in this area before they have carefully and thoroughly considered all of the information received.

More specifically, we urge that the Departments take no action to mandate that plan sponsors -- often, small businesses -- include a “lifetime income” or “annuitization” option if they choose to offer a 401(k) plan to their employees, or that beneficiaries take some or all of their retirement savings in such an option. Data shows that 70 percent of Americans oppose the concept of a mandated annuity or government payout of their 401(k) plan. On a more fundamental level, Congress should not be in the business of choosing “winners” and “losers” among retirement security stakeholders. Instead, we urge the Departments to make it easier for employers to include retirement income solutions in their savings plans and to help workers learn more about the value of their retirement savings as a source of retirement income. Finally, to the extent new mandates and bureaucratic red tape from Washington push small employers out of the business of offering these plans to their employees, we would submit such an effort weakens, rather than strengthens retirement security.

We appreciate your consideration of our views in these important matters and stand ready to work with you and the Administration to promote secure and adequate retirement savings for all Americans.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI)
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX)
Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH)
Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH)
Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA)
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36823



Can't happen, huh?

During the past two weeks, U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support have entertained proposals that would tax 401(k) plans.

Both held hearings laying the groundwork for future legislation that could eliminate most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that investors receive by placing their money in the $3 trillion 401(k) system



More here:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=34158209&postcount=58

Still don't believe it?

Proposed Rules to Seize 401Ks

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31077848/Proposed-Rules-to-Seize-401Ks

 

[renard_ruse]

Gallup Poll:
71% of Democrats Say Government Should Redistribute Wealth

Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes.

Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. A majority of independents oppose the redistribution of wealth policy, as well.What are YOUR views regarding the Redistribution of Wealth through Heavy Taxes on the Rich?

Do you think U.S. government should, or should not, redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?

They openly admit to being theives and communists? Wow, that's just incredible, even for them.

This is legalized, government organized theft/stealing. It goes without saying it outrageous and morally wrong. There's obviously no justification for it.

The real question is "how did we get here"? How did we get to the point where such numbers of modern Americans (not tsarist Russian peasants or factory workers in 19th century Europe mind you) could feel such an immoral concept is justified and/or desirable? That's what really needs to be looked into.

 

[renard_ruse]

Do you key nice cars because you can't have one yourself?

Keying BMWs is fun. Not because they are expensive though, but because people who drive them are usually assholes.

 

[renard_ruse]

Here again you reveal your stupidity. What happened to Detroit happened when the top executives of the Big Three moved production elsewhere. They thought their profits were more important than providing factory workers with decent wages.

"Free" trade caused jobs to be moved overseas. This is where the government does have a role in the economy, to put tariffs on foreign products and components to level the playing field between labor markets of vastly different wage levels.

You cannot blame a company for going where labor is cheaper, if they did not they would be negligent to their shareholders. In the case of "free" trade the politicians (of both parties) are responsible for the decline in manufacturing.

Neo-Communist "redistribution" ideology has zero to do with the death of American's manufacturing base. In fact, the death of decent jobs helps the Neo-Communists because it makes more angry unemployed, underemployed people wanting to blame someone and steal from them.

 

[renard_ruse]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke_Atmydik
Since I was 13. Do you?

Since I was 14. Currently, living well off my success in life.
I hope the same for your generation.

What generation are 10 year olds? Are we on Gen Z already?

 

[renard_ruse]

Tell that to those in the military and the police force, and see what happens.

Personally, I no longer mince words around that bunch. To hell with them. What are they going to do, attack me? I hope so, because I will sue their asses off.

 

[Braschi]

Their money won't do us any good until the government takes it from them, and spends it on domestic spending programs that benefit everyone else.

Yup, fuck the selfish bastards, we only care about ourselves.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm betting that the 71% who favor redistribution dont include the Clintons, Pelosi, Reid, the Kennedys, and the Kerrys. Call it a hunch. Ooops, left out John Edwards.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

"Free" trade caused jobs to be moved overseas. This is where the government does have a role in the economy, to put tariffs on foreign products and components to level the playing field between labor markets of vastly different wage levels.

You cannot blame a company for going where labor is cheaper, if they did not they would be negligent to their shareholders. In the case of "free" trade the politicians (of both parties) are responsible for the decline in manufacturing.

Neo-Communist "redistribution" ideology has zero to do with the death of American's manufacturing base. In fact, the death of decent jobs helps the Neo-Communists because it makes more angry unemployed, underemployed people wanting to blame someone and steal from them.

Uh, no. Wrong. Free trade didnt do it. Congress did it. Both parties.

It works like this. Pay the right people and no one from the government comes around counting niggers or illegals or snoops thru your paperwork or shipping containers. Pay the right people enough money and life becomes good. I'll bet that if you read the full tax codes youre likely to find stuff like...HOORAY FOR ME AND FUCK LJ SOME MO. I'll bet its in there.

 

[JenAltArmy]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3353877772_b82e08b647_m.jpg

what you think this is a good thing?

 

[JenAltArmy]

Tell that to those in the military and the police force, and see what happens.

While you are at it, tell it to fire fighters, public school teachers, and those who administer popular entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

the school system has been screwing the tax payer for years. a job for life, that is a fantasy!

we also must end the government welfare, aka pension plan

 

[JenAltArmy]

wrong, the American consumer shoping at Wal Mart killed American manufacturing.

free trade had nothing to do with it, only made it easier.

side note, the Union destoryed American manufacturing also.

summery, this is what destoryed manufacturing:
government 1/3
the union 1/3
the consumer 1/3

not that you said this but I find it funny when people bitch about jobs, while buying goods from China at Wal Mart.

hello?!?!?!

"Free" trade caused jobs to be moved overseas. This is where the government does have a role in the economy, to put tariffs on foreign products and components to level the playing field between labor markets of vastly different wage levels.

You cannot blame a company for going where labor is cheaper, if they did not they would be negligent to their shareholders. In the case of "free" trade the politicians (of both parties) are responsible for the decline in manufacturing.

Neo-Communist "redistribution" ideology has zero to do with the death of American's manufacturing base. In fact, the death of decent jobs helps the Neo-Communists because it makes more angry unemployed, underemployed people wanting to blame someone and steal from them.

 

[doctor_insanus]

http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/24119/IssaWeiner.png

 

[unregistered]

 

[garbage can]

I see the usual suspects voted "Yes*

When Grandpa dies, after working a lifetime on the farm, rape his farm, hit him for 95% of the farms worth. Fuck him, the rich bastard, take his savings and divvy it up with the poe people.

 

[unregistered]

 

[rosco rathbone]

I see the usual suspects voted "Yes*

When Grandpa dies, after working a lifetime on the farm, rape his farm, hit him for 95% of the farms worth. Fuck him, the rich bastard, take his savings and divvy it up with the poe people.

Misleading metaphor.

Hardworking farmer Grandpa, in this instance, is actually a loan shark. He didn't work a farm, instead he made his (capital gains) in the financialised economy, lending money at usurious rates to the real farmers and then taking over their land when they foreclose.

That's the wealth that needs to be redistributed. Read the link in my sig.

 

[JenAltArmy]

http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/24119/IssaWeiner.png

why don't you send uncle obama $100,000?

I don't want to, giving obama money is like giving a person addicted to crack, well crack! obama needs rehab